THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST PRICING CARBON DIOXIDE AND OTHER GREENHOUSE GASES (GHGs)

THERE NOT A DAY THAT GOES BY WITHOUT HEARING THAT THE WORLD CLIMATE IS ON THE VERGE OF DISASTER – A TIPPING POINT.

As of 1 November 2016: 192 Parties signed the Agreement, 92 Parties ratified.

Done and dusted.

Not on your Nelly.

Let’s cut the crap about carbon tax.

(Carbon tax for a broad range of fossil fuel intensive industries, exemptions which have been principally motivated by concern about competitiveness. The primary environmental objective of a tax on carbon is to set a price that reflects the “real” costs such emissions impose—accounting for the damages that are expected to arise from global warming, including effects on agricultural productivity and human health, coastal inundation, and other changes.)

The only problem is: THAT IT DOES NOT – AND WILL NOT WORK.

Why?

BECAUSE: It would need to operate (i.e. centuries).

Another words all countries will have to act in unison to increase the optimal carbon price periodically and continue to maintain the carbon price at the optimal level for all of this century (and beyond).

It cannot succeed unless it is global but global carbon pricing is unlikely to get implemented, let alone sustained for the time required to deliver the projected benefits.

A further difficulty that I see is. In reaching an International Agreement on Carbon Tax – how do you reflect the cost from country to country. Is it to be a new tax or in place of an existing tax.

Can you see either happening?

The world is unlikely to agree to carbon pricing.

Donald Trump god forbid the next US President says he doesn’t believe in climate change.

With Carbon Tax : Nearly two hundred sovereign governments do not have to somehow coordinate their climate policies. The assumptions that underpin the economic analyses used to justify carbon pricing are appropriate for a theoretical modelling exercise but unrealistic, impracticable and highly unlikely to be achieved in the real world.

Future economic damages from carbon dioxide emissions can only be estimated in conjunction with forecasts of climate change.

IT WILL NEVER BE A FAIR TAX.

It’s a regressive tax that benefits big business and the wealthy at the expense of lower and middle-income earners.

There is no pledge to offset the carbon tax with reductions in other taxes.

U.N.’s own report shows that aggressive emission cutbacks—even if achieved through an ‘efficient’ carbon tax—would probably cause more harm than good.

First, it is very hard to target subsidies and mandates toward the most cost-effective abatement, both because the government does not know which
technologies will be least costly and because it is hard to implement a program that is not prone to political favoritism.

Second, it is nearly impossible to preclude subsidizing abatement that would happen anyway or mandating activities that are more costly than the avoided damages to the environment. Clean energy subsidies can also have the perverse effect of increasing the overall supply of energy and making prices fall, partly offsetting the benefits of the TAX.

The amount of revenue raised depends on the level of the tax, how broadly it is applied, and other factors. Most experts suggest a tax of around $25 per ton of CO2, which would raise approximately $125 billion.

Exempting some sectors or categories of emissions sources may create perverse economic incentives.

There is a better way.

It is to deregulate so the cost of low-emissions energy can come down over time, especially in developing countries. With this approach there would be no need for carbon pricing, emissions monitoring, or enforcement mechanisms involving policing, disputation, conflicts and international courts.

According to the World Bank, about 12 percent of the world’s global emissions of greenhouse gases are subject to a carbon price — either a tax or, more commonly, a levy under a regime of cap-and-trade like that in California and Europe, in which permits to emit are auctioned among THE POLLUTING companies.

There is no way that a carbon tax is going to be yielded significant reductions in gasoline purchases. It will however increase energy prices—the amount of increase would depend on the size of the tax and the extent to which it is passed forward to consumers.

A carbon tax could lead to overall economic growth, if the tax revenues are used in a way that promotes economic growth, such as cutting other taxes or reducing the deficit, WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

The road the World must travel to reduce global warming is to spread the cost fairly by making Profit for Profit sake pay (See previous Posts)

IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS RELATED GLOBAL WARMING.

HAVE A LOOK AT : BEFORE THE FLOOD. https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M)

Before I wrap this post up.

Here is a message for Leonardo and Fisher just in the off-chance either of you get to read this post.

With your influence you could get the medium of World-Wide Television to include in their Weather Forecast a section showing the Global warming. They have a social responsibility to highlight the problem BY DOING SO THEY WOULD CREATE AWARENESS THAT COULD TRANSLATE INTO ACTION.